ID CVE-2009-0090
Summary Microsoft .NET Framework 1.0 SP3, 1.1 SP1, and 2.0 SP1 does not properly validate .NET verifiable code, which allows remote attackers to obtain unintended access to stack memory, and execute arbitrary code, via (1) a crafted XAML browser application (XBAP), (2) a crafted ASP.NET application, or (3) a crafted .NET Framework application, aka "Microsoft .NET Framework Pointer Verification Vulnerability."
References
Vulnerable Configurations
  • Microsoft Windows 2000 Service Pack 4
    cpe:2.3:o:microsoft:windows_2000:-:sp4
  • Microsoft .NET Framework Version 1.1 Service Pack 1
    cpe:2.3:a:microsoft:.net_framework:1.1:sp1
  • Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0 Service Pack 1
    cpe:2.3:a:microsoft:.net_framework:2.0:sp1
  • Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0 Service Pack 2
    cpe:2.3:a:microsoft:.net_framework:2.0:sp2
  • Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 2
    cpe:2.3:o:microsoft:windows_server_2003:-:sp2
  • cpe:2.3:o:microsoft:windows_server_2008:-:itanium
    cpe:2.3:o:microsoft:windows_server_2008:-:itanium
  • cpe:2.3:o:microsoft:windows_server_2008:-:x32
    cpe:2.3:o:microsoft:windows_server_2008:-:x32
  • cpe:2.3:o:microsoft:windows_server_2008:-:x64
    cpe:2.3:o:microsoft:windows_server_2008:-:x64
  • Microsoft Windows Server 2008 Service Pack 2 for Itanium-Based Systems
    cpe:2.3:o:microsoft:windows_server_2008:-:sp2:itanium
  • Microsoft Windows Server 2008 Service Pack 2 x64 (64-bit)
    cpe:2.3:o:microsoft:windows_server_2008:-:sp2:x64
  • Microsoft Windows Server 2008 Service Pack 2
    cpe:2.3:o:microsoft:windows_server_2008:-:sp2
  • Windows Server 2008 Service Pack 2 x86
    cpe:2.3:o:microsoft:windows_server_2008:-:sp2:x86
  • Microsoft .NET Framework Version 1.1 Service Pack 1
    cpe:2.3:a:microsoft:.net_framework:1.1:sp1
  • Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0 Service Pack 1
    cpe:2.3:a:microsoft:.net_framework:2.0:sp1
  • Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0 Service Pack 2
    cpe:2.3:a:microsoft:.net_framework:2.0:sp2
  • Microsoft .net Framework 3.5
    cpe:2.3:a:microsoft:.net_framework:3.5
  • Microsoft .NET Framework 3.51 Service Pack 1
    cpe:2.3:a:microsoft:.net_framework:3.5:sp1
  • Microsoft Windows Vista
    cpe:2.3:o:microsoft:windows_vista
  • cpe:2.3:o:microsoft:windows_vista:-:x64
    cpe:2.3:o:microsoft:windows_vista:-:x64
  • Microsoft Windows Vista Service Pack 1 (initial release)
    cpe:2.3:o:microsoft:windows_vista:-:sp1
  • Microsoft Windows Vista Service Pack 1 x64 (64-bit)
    cpe:2.3:o:microsoft:windows_vista:-:sp1:x64
  • Microsoft Windows Vista Service Pack 2
    cpe:2.3:o:microsoft:windows_vista:-:sp2
  • Microsoft Windows Vista Service Pack 2 x64 (64-bit)
    cpe:2.3:o:microsoft:windows_vista:-:sp2:x64
  • Microsoft .NET Framework Version 1.1 Service Pack 1
    cpe:2.3:a:microsoft:.net_framework:1.1:sp1
  • Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0
    cpe:2.3:a:microsoft:.net_framework:2.0
  • Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0 Service Pack 1
    cpe:2.3:a:microsoft:.net_framework:2.0:sp1
  • Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0 Service Pack 2
    cpe:2.3:a:microsoft:.net_framework:2.0:sp2
  • Microsoft .net Framework 3.5
    cpe:2.3:a:microsoft:.net_framework:3.5
  • Microsoft .NET Framework 3.51 Service Pack 1
    cpe:2.3:a:microsoft:.net_framework:3.5:sp1
  • Microsoft .NET Framework Version 1.1 Service Pack 1
    cpe:2.3:a:microsoft:.net_framework:1.1:sp1
  • Microsoft Windows 7
    cpe:2.3:o:microsoft:windows_7
  • Windows Server 2008 R2 for Itanium-based Systems
    cpe:2.3:o:microsoft:windows_server_2008:-:r2:itanium
  • Windows Server 2008 R2 for x64-based Systems
    cpe:2.3:o:microsoft:windows_server_2008:-:r2:x64
  • Microsoft .NET Framework Version 1.0, Service Pack 3
    cpe:2.3:a:microsoft:.net_framework:1.0:sp3
  • Microsoft .NET Framework Version 1.1 Service Pack 1
    cpe:2.3:a:microsoft:.net_framework:1.1:sp1
  • Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0 Service Pack 1
    cpe:2.3:a:microsoft:.net_framework:2.0:sp1
  • Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0 Service Pack 2
    cpe:2.3:a:microsoft:.net_framework:2.0:sp2
  • Microsoft .net Framework 3.5
    cpe:2.3:a:microsoft:.net_framework:3.5
  • Microsoft .NET Framework 3.51 Service Pack 1
    cpe:2.3:a:microsoft:.net_framework:3.5:sp1
  • Microsoft Windows XP Service Pack 2
    cpe:2.3:o:microsoft:windows_xp:-:sp2
  • Microsoft Windows XP Service Pack 3
    cpe:2.3:o:microsoft:windows_xp:-:sp3
  • Microsoft Windows XP Service Pack 2 x64 (64-bit)
    cpe:2.3:o:microsoft:windows_xp:-:sp2:x64
CVSS
Base: 9.3 (as of 14-10-2009 - 09:03)
Impact:
Exploitability:
CWE CWE-264
CAPEC
  • Accessing, Modifying or Executing Executable Files
    An attack of this type exploits a system's configuration that allows an attacker to either directly access an executable file, for example through shell access; or in a possible worst case allows an attacker to upload a file and then execute it. Web servers, ftp servers, and message oriented middleware systems which have many integration points are particularly vulnerable, because both the programmers and the administrators must be in synch regarding the interfaces and the correct privileges for each interface.
  • Leverage Executable Code in Non-Executable Files
    An attack of this type exploits a system's trust in configuration and resource files, when the executable loads the resource (such as an image file or configuration file) the attacker has modified the file to either execute malicious code directly or manipulate the target process (e.g. application server) to execute based on the malicious configuration parameters. Since systems are increasingly interrelated mashing up resources from local and remote sources the possibility of this attack occurring is high. The attack can be directed at a client system, such as causing buffer overrun through loading seemingly benign image files, as in Microsoft Security Bulletin MS04-028 where specially crafted JPEG files could cause a buffer overrun once loaded into the browser. Another example targets clients reading pdf files. In this case the attacker simply appends javascript to the end of a legitimate url for a pdf (http://www.gnucitizen.org/blog/danger-danger-danger/) http://path/to/pdf/file.pdf#whatever_name_you_want=javascript:your_code_here The client assumes that they are reading a pdf, but the attacker has modified the resource and loaded executable javascript into the client's browser process. The attack can also target server processes. The attacker edits the resource or configuration file, for example a web.xml file used to configure security permissions for a J2EE app server, adding role name "public" grants all users with the public role the ability to use the administration functionality. The server trusts its configuration file to be correct, but when they are manipulated, the attacker gains full control.
  • Blue Boxing
    This type of attack against older telephone switches and trunks has been around for decades. A tone is sent by an adversary to impersonate a supervisor signal which has the effect of rerouting or usurping command of the line. While the US infrastructure proper may not contain widespread vulnerabilities to this type of attack, many companies are connected globally through call centers and business process outsourcing. These international systems may be operated in countries which have not upgraded Telco infrastructure and so are vulnerable to Blue boxing. Blue boxing is a result of failure on the part of the system to enforce strong authorization for administrative functions. While the infrastructure is different than standard current applications like web applications, there are historical lessons to be learned to upgrade the access control for administrative functions.
  • Restful Privilege Elevation
    Rest uses standard HTTP (Get, Put, Delete) style permissions methods, but these are not necessarily correlated generally with back end programs. Strict interpretation of HTTP get methods means that these HTTP Get services should not be used to delete information on the server, but there is no access control mechanism to back up this logic. This means that unless the services are properly ACL'd and the application's service implementation are following these guidelines then an HTTP request can easily execute a delete or update on the server side. The attacker identifies a HTTP Get URL such as http://victimsite/updateOrder, which calls out to a program to update orders on a database or other resource. The URL is not idempotent so the request can be submitted multiple times by the attacker, additionally, the attacker may be able to exploit the URL published as a Get method that actually performs updates (instead of merely retrieving data). This may result in malicious or inadvertent altering of data on the server.
  • Target Programs with Elevated Privileges
    This attack targets programs running with elevated privileges. The attacker would try to leverage a bug in the running program and get arbitrary code to execute with elevated privileges. For instance an attacker would look for programs that write to the system directories or registry keys (such as HKLM, which stores a number of critical Windows environment variables). These programs are typically running with elevated privileges and have usually not been designed with security in mind. Such programs are excellent exploit targets because they yield lots of power when they break. The malicious user try to execute its code at the same level as a privileged system call.
  • Manipulating Input to File System Calls
    An attacker manipulates inputs to the target software which the target software passes to file system calls in the OS. The goal is to gain access to, and perhaps modify, areas of the file system that the target software did not intend to be accessible.
Access
VectorComplexityAuthentication
NETWORK MEDIUM NONE
Impact
ConfidentialityIntegrityAvailability
COMPLETE COMPLETE COMPLETE
msbulletin via4
bulletin_id MS09-061
bulletin_url
date 2009-10-13T00:00:00
impact Remote Code Execution
knowledgebase_id 974378
knowledgebase_url
severity Critical
title Vulnerabilities in the Microsoft .NET Common Language Runtime Could Allow Remote Code Execution
nessus via4
NASL family Windows : Microsoft Bulletins
NASL id SMB_NT_MS09-061.NASL
description The remote Windows host is running a version of the Microsoft .NET Framework that is affected by multiple vulnerabilities : - A remote code execution vulnerability exists in the Microsoft .NET Framework that could allow a malicious Microsoft .NET application to obtain a managed pointer to stack memory that is no longer used. The malicious Microsoft .NET application could then use this pointer to modify legitimate values placed at that stack location later, leading to arbitrary, unmanaged code execution. Microsoft .NET applications that are not malicious are not at risk for being compromised because of this vulnerability.(CVE-2009-0090) - A remote code execution vulnerability exists in the Microsoft .NET Framework that could allow a malicious Microsoft .NET application to bypass a type equality check. The malicious Microsoft .NET could exploit this vulnerability by casting an object of one type into another type, leading to arbitrary, unmanaged code execution. Microsoft .NET applications that are not malicious are not at risk for being compromised because of this vulnerability.(CVE-2009-0091) - A remote code execution vulnerability exists in the Microsoft .NET Framework that can allow a malicious Microsoft .NET application or a malicious Silverlight application to modify memory of the attacker's choice, leading to arbitrary, unmanaged code execution. Microsoft .NET applications and Silverlight applications that are not malicious are not at risk for being compromised because of this vulnerability.(CVE-2009-2497)
last seen 2019-02-21
modified 2018-11-15
plugin id 42117
published 2009-10-14
reporter Tenable
source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=42117
title MS09-061: Vulnerabilities in the Microsoft .NET Common Language Runtime Could Allow Remote Code Execution (974378)
oval via4
accepted 2014-08-18T04:06:01.746-04:00
class vulnerability
contributors
  • name Dragos Prisaca
    organization Gideon Technologies, Inc.
  • name J. Daniel Brown
    organization DTCC
  • name J. Daniel Brown
    organization DTCC
  • name J. Daniel Brown
    organization DTCC
  • name J. Daniel Brown
    organization DTCC
  • name Josh Turpin
    organization Symantec Corporation
  • name Dragos Prisaca
    organization Symantec Corporation
  • name Maria Mikhno
    organization ALTX-SOFT
definition_extensions
  • comment Microsoft Windows 2000 is installed
    oval oval:org.mitre.oval:def:85
  • comment Microsoft Windows XP (32-bit) is installed
    oval oval:org.mitre.oval:def:1353
  • comment Microsoft Windows XP x64 is installed
    oval oval:org.mitre.oval:def:15247
  • comment Microsoft Windows Server 2003 (32-bit) is installed
    oval oval:org.mitre.oval:def:1870
  • comment Microsoft Windows Server 2003 (x64) is installed
    oval oval:org.mitre.oval:def:730
  • comment Microsoft Windows Server 2003 (ia64) Gold is installed
    oval oval:org.mitre.oval:def:396
  • comment Microsoft Windows Vista (32-bit) is installed
    oval oval:org.mitre.oval:def:1282
  • comment Microsoft Windows Vista x64 Edition is installed
    oval oval:org.mitre.oval:def:2041
  • comment Microsoft Windows Server 2008 (32-bit) is installed
    oval oval:org.mitre.oval:def:4870
  • comment Microsoft Windows Server 2008 (64-bit) is installed
    oval oval:org.mitre.oval:def:5356
  • comment Microsoft Windows Server 2008 (ia-64) is installed
    oval oval:org.mitre.oval:def:5667
  • comment Microsoft Windows 7 (32-bit) is installed
    oval oval:org.mitre.oval:def:6165
  • comment Microsoft Windows 7 x64 Edition is installed
    oval oval:org.mitre.oval:def:5950
  • comment Microsoft Windows Server 2008 R2 x64 Edition is installed
    oval oval:org.mitre.oval:def:6438
  • comment Microsoft Windows Server 2008 R2 Itanium-Based Edition is installed
    oval oval:org.mitre.oval:def:5954
  • comment Microsoft .NET Framework 1.1 Service Pack 1 is Installed
    oval oval:org.mitre.oval:def:1834
  • comment Microsoft Windows 2000 is installed
    oval oval:org.mitre.oval:def:85
  • comment Microsoft Windows XP (32-bit) is installed
    oval oval:org.mitre.oval:def:1353
  • comment Microsoft Windows XP x64 is installed
    oval oval:org.mitre.oval:def:15247
  • comment Microsoft Windows Server 2003 (32-bit) is installed
    oval oval:org.mitre.oval:def:1870
  • comment Microsoft Windows Server 2003 (x64) is installed
    oval oval:org.mitre.oval:def:730
  • comment Microsoft Windows Server 2003 (ia64) Gold is installed
    oval oval:org.mitre.oval:def:396
  • comment Microsoft Windows Vista (32-bit) is installed
    oval oval:org.mitre.oval:def:1282
  • comment Microsoft Windows Vista x64 Edition is installed
    oval oval:org.mitre.oval:def:2041
  • comment Microsoft Windows Server 2008 (32-bit) is installed
    oval oval:org.mitre.oval:def:4870
  • comment Microsoft Windows Server 2008 (64-bit) is installed
    oval oval:org.mitre.oval:def:5356
  • comment Microsoft Windows Server 2008 (ia-64) is installed
    oval oval:org.mitre.oval:def:5667
  • comment Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0 Service Pack 1 is installed
    oval oval:org.mitre.oval:def:6428
description Microsoft .NET Framework 1.0 SP3, 1.1 SP1, and 2.0 SP1 does not properly validate .NET verifiable code, which allows remote attackers to obtain unintended access to stack memory, and execute arbitrary code, via (1) a crafted XAML browser application (XBAP), (2) a crafted ASP.NET application, or (3) a crafted .NET Framework application, aka "Microsoft .NET Framework Pointer Verification Vulnerability."
family windows
id oval:org.mitre.oval:def:5716
status accepted
submitted 2009-10-13T13:00:00
title Microsoft .NET Framework Pointer Verification Vulnerability
version 40
refmap via4
cert TA09-286A
ms MS09-061
Last major update 21-08-2010 - 01:29
Published 14-10-2009 - 06:30
Last modified 26-02-2019 - 09:04
Back to Top